A man cuts off his seven year old sons penis using a knife and then sews up the sperm tube using a needly and thread. The man is then arrested and taken to court. He admits to what he did and the judge is about to sentence him but he decides to use the circumcision defense. He argues that what he did was just an extreme form of male circumcision. The judge at first says, "What you did was castration not male circumcision." The man says, "I have just done the equivalent of cutting off the clitoris and sewing up the vagina but on a male." The judge says, "Well cutting off the clitoris and sewing up the vagina is illegal." The man says, "But is cutting off the clitoris and sewing up the vagina not considered an extreme form of female circumcision?" The judge says, "Yes cutting off the clitoris and sewing up the vagina is considered an extreme form of female circumcision but female circumcision is illegal and cutting off the penis is not circumcision." The man says, "But the foreskin was removed when I cut off my sons penis along with the rest of my sons penis so that makes it male circumcision and my religion requires me to do this so it would violate my religiose freedom for you to sentence me." The judge thinks about what the man said for a minute before saying, "You are right what you did was a form of male circumcision," and then allows the man to go as male circumcision is not illegal even when done to children.

When I say could this happen I am talking about the man getting away with castration by calling it circumcision part of the story not just the act of castration.

First off: castration is removing the testicles, not the penis. And sperm tube??? really? That would be the urethra.
This isn't even close to a circumcision, so no, I don't believe any judge would let this fly.

However if the Judge let the man go the judge is also a nut case... The man could get away with doing a circumcision, however, DISMEMBERMENT Is not a circurmcision.. it is mutilation,,,,, therefor the man was guilty of a crime,,,